The Fifth US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against President Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, citing the act was improperly invoked. The court determined that Trump’s claims of a “predatory incursion” or “invasion” by the gang did not meet the criteria for using the wartime authority. This ruling, likely to reach the Supreme Court, represents the first appellate court to closely examine the issue. While the court found the notice period compliant, a dissenting judge argued the required seven-day notice did not sufficiently provide due process to unrepresented detainees.
Read More
Former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro and seven allies, including high-ranking military officials, are on trial for allegedly attempting a coup, marking an unprecedented moment in Brazilian history. Accused of orchestrating a plot to overturn the 2022 election results, Bolsonaro faces potential decades in prison. The Supreme Court began the trial, with judges expected to render a verdict after televised hearings. Amidst the proceedings, former US President Donald Trump has intervened, imposing tariffs and sanctions in a bid to derail the trial, which has stirred both domestic and international debate on the maturity of Brazil’s democracy.
Read More
The Trump administration faces the potential of returning nearly $100 billion in customs duties, according to analysts, following a court ruling on the legality of tariffs. The US Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s ruling, determining that Trump acted unlawfully by implementing broad import levies without Congressional approval. Although the appeals court voted in favor of the initial judgment, the tariffs remain in effect while the Trump administration appeals to the Supreme Court. These tariffs, first introduced in February, have generated approximately $100 billion in extra customs duties.
Read More
The Supreme Court is considering a case, *Louisiana v. Callais*, that could significantly weaken the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). The state of Louisiana is arguing against the use of race in redistricting, potentially leading to the elimination of Black-majority districts. The Court is examining whether compliance with Section 2 of the VRA violates the 14th or 15th Amendments, indicating a possible intention to dismantle the law. If the Court finds Section 2 unconstitutional, it could jeopardize the existence of numerous Black-majority districts in Southern states. The ruling could potentially dismantle a cornerstone of voting rights protections, which has already been challenged in past Supreme Court decisions.
Read More
Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Bradley, a conservative, announced on Friday that she will not seek reelection, creating an open seat on a court currently controlled by a 4-3 liberal majority. Bradley’s departure follows conservative losses in the last two statewide Supreme Court races, including one heavily funded by Elon Musk. The upcoming election for Bradley’s seat, scheduled for April 7, 2026, will likely draw national attention as the court addresses key issues like abortion, redistricting, and election laws. The race is particularly significant given Wisconsin’s status as a critical battleground state.
Read More
A federal appeals court ruled that most of President Trump’s global tariffs were illegal, significantly impacting his trade policies. The court determined that the law Trump invoked to impose the tariffs, including his “reciprocal” tariffs, did not grant him the necessary power. The ruling pauses its effect until October 14th, giving the Trump administration time to appeal to the Supreme Court. The case originated from lawsuits challenging Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, and the court found that the tariffs’ scope exceeded the president’s authority.
Read More
A federal appeals court recently delivered a significant setback to Donald Trump’s tariff agenda. The court ruled that the president’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs was illegal, as the law doesn’t grant the power to levy taxes. This decision largely affirms an earlier ruling, rejecting the argument that tariff imposition falls within the president’s foreign policy authority. While the court acknowledged the president’s constitutional authority, it emphasized that the power to tax belongs to Congress. The White House has stated that they will continue to work on this matter, with Trump himself criticizing the ruling and predicting the Supreme Court would allow his tariffs.
Read More
Trump’s global tariffs are unlawful, appeals court says, and that’s a pretty straightforward statement. It’s the kind of news that makes you think, “Well, duh,” especially when you consider the whole situation. The court case has been dragging on for eight months, and the fact that the tariffs were allowed to stay in place while the legal wrangling unfolded is, frankly, a little infuriating. It essentially allowed these allegedly unlawful actions to continue for a significant period, with no immediate consequences. It’s the kind of thing that breeds cynicism, isn’t it?
The response from Trump, as reported, was pretty dramatic. Warning that blocking the tariffs “would literally destroy the United States of America” feels like an overwrought reaction, to say the least.… Continue reading
Friday’s ruling from a federal appeals court further complicated former President Trump’s economic agenda, specifically regarding his imposition of tariffs. The court found Trump lacked the authority to enforce a majority of his broad tariffs on imported goods. This decision constitutes another significant legal hurdle for the trade policies central to his administration’s approach. The ruling directly challenges the president’s power to unilaterally enact such tariffs, impacting trade relationships with numerous nations.
Read More
In a solo opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson criticized the Supreme Court’s handling of the Trump administration’s legal battles, likening it to a game of “Calvinball” where the administration always prevails. Jackson described the NIH case as the latest instance of the court favoring the Executive Branch, highlighting the potential consequences for both the law and the public. This statement marked a departure from her colleagues, as she did not have the support of the other Democratic appointees. Jackson expressed hope that affected parties could maintain their claims long enough for the court to reconsider its stance.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood